Romney; Murtha and 402 other U.S. Reps.
Today's lead editorial in the Boston Globe bashed Gov. Mitt Romney; gee, what a surprise. Countering Gov. Romney's claim that he closed a large budget deficit without raising taxes, the Boston Globe says, "the facts are that the economic recovery was largely national." Huh? Does the Boston Globe mean the nation led by President George W. Bush?
The letter I submitted:
Editor,
When the Boston Globe dismissed Gov. Romney's claim for reducing the State's budget deficit without raising taxes because "the facts are that the economic recovery was largely national", did the Boston Globe mean the nation that is led by President George W. Bush (Editorial, December 15, A20)? During all of the gubernatorial elections next year, will the Boston Globe let us know about any Democrat campaigning for re-election based on her/his state's economic recovery that was "in fact" due to President Bush's economic policies? I very much doubt it. (End of letter.)
Elsewhere on the editorial pages, the liberally extreme Bush-hater, Mr. Thomas Oliphant, wrote, "The President has also continued to be dishonest about what is about to happen in Iraq in terms of the American armed forces. The truth is that after a brief interval, the more than 20,000 extra troops brought in for the run-up to the elections will be withdrawn. Shortly after the first of the year, the force level will be reduced still further because people returning to this country as part of regularly, already scheduled rotations in the combat zone will not be replaced. That will have the effect of cutting the force level still more - probably to about 120,000. In other words, though Bush would insist that everything depends on how the war is going, the United States has plans to remove about one-third of its forces over the next three or four months. Just for the record, that is not any different from what supposedly antiwar Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has said should happen over the same period." Are you kidding me with this garbage? Oliphant is trying to argue that Rep. Murtha is getting a bum wrap yet he basically agrees with the President? That's unbelievable! The President has been called ever vile name the liberal extremists and Bush-haters can think of and, YES, he and the Patron Saint of Left-Wing War Thinking, Jack Murtha, agree. Murtha says it and he's great. The President says it and he's vilified in the liberal media. How does an idiot like Oliphant hold a job as a serious political writer? My goodness, he's such an idiot. The knife cuts both ways, you idiot.
Go back and read my earlier posts, I say it over and over and over again, I agree with Hillary and the President. I agree with Sen. John F. Kerry. I agree with former Senator John Edwards. They all agree with the President yet they're all great and the President is vilified. Love that liberal media. Four hundred and three Congresspeople, including 187 Democrats and Jack Murtha, voted against the immediate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. The Democrats are great and the Republicans are vilified. Love that liberal media; now there is no greater proof of their hate-Bush hysteria. The exact same sentiment and Bush is worthy of hate and Murtha is worthy of praise? I say they're both worthy of praise for agreeing on the proper rate to draw down US troops in Iraq.
Anyway, the letter:
Editor,
After walking us through President Bush's planned draw-down of US troops in Iraq, Mr. Thomas Oliphant writes, "Just for the record, (this) is not any different from what the supposedly antiwar Democratic congressman, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, has said should happen over bascially the same period." Okay, if President Bush and Rep. Murtha are saying the same thing, why is the liberal media vilifying the President and praising Rep. Murtha? The hate-Bush hysteria on the Left is proved beyond any doubt. (End of letter.)
Today's lead editorial in the Boston Globe bashed Gov. Mitt Romney; gee, what a surprise. Countering Gov. Romney's claim that he closed a large budget deficit without raising taxes, the Boston Globe says, "the facts are that the economic recovery was largely national." Huh? Does the Boston Globe mean the nation led by President George W. Bush?
The letter I submitted:
Editor,
When the Boston Globe dismissed Gov. Romney's claim for reducing the State's budget deficit without raising taxes because "the facts are that the economic recovery was largely national", did the Boston Globe mean the nation that is led by President George W. Bush (Editorial, December 15, A20)? During all of the gubernatorial elections next year, will the Boston Globe let us know about any Democrat campaigning for re-election based on her/his state's economic recovery that was "in fact" due to President Bush's economic policies? I very much doubt it. (End of letter.)
Elsewhere on the editorial pages, the liberally extreme Bush-hater, Mr. Thomas Oliphant, wrote, "The President has also continued to be dishonest about what is about to happen in Iraq in terms of the American armed forces. The truth is that after a brief interval, the more than 20,000 extra troops brought in for the run-up to the elections will be withdrawn. Shortly after the first of the year, the force level will be reduced still further because people returning to this country as part of regularly, already scheduled rotations in the combat zone will not be replaced. That will have the effect of cutting the force level still more - probably to about 120,000. In other words, though Bush would insist that everything depends on how the war is going, the United States has plans to remove about one-third of its forces over the next three or four months. Just for the record, that is not any different from what supposedly antiwar Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has said should happen over the same period." Are you kidding me with this garbage? Oliphant is trying to argue that Rep. Murtha is getting a bum wrap yet he basically agrees with the President? That's unbelievable! The President has been called ever vile name the liberal extremists and Bush-haters can think of and, YES, he and the Patron Saint of Left-Wing War Thinking, Jack Murtha, agree. Murtha says it and he's great. The President says it and he's vilified in the liberal media. How does an idiot like Oliphant hold a job as a serious political writer? My goodness, he's such an idiot. The knife cuts both ways, you idiot.
Go back and read my earlier posts, I say it over and over and over again, I agree with Hillary and the President. I agree with Sen. John F. Kerry. I agree with former Senator John Edwards. They all agree with the President yet they're all great and the President is vilified. Love that liberal media. Four hundred and three Congresspeople, including 187 Democrats and Jack Murtha, voted against the immediate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. The Democrats are great and the Republicans are vilified. Love that liberal media; now there is no greater proof of their hate-Bush hysteria. The exact same sentiment and Bush is worthy of hate and Murtha is worthy of praise? I say they're both worthy of praise for agreeing on the proper rate to draw down US troops in Iraq.
Anyway, the letter:
Editor,
After walking us through President Bush's planned draw-down of US troops in Iraq, Mr. Thomas Oliphant writes, "Just for the record, (this) is not any different from what the supposedly antiwar Democratic congressman, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, has said should happen over bascially the same period." Okay, if President Bush and Rep. Murtha are saying the same thing, why is the liberal media vilifying the President and praising Rep. Murtha? The hate-Bush hysteria on the Left is proved beyond any doubt. (End of letter.)
posted by Zack at 7:03 PM
5 Comments:
though you sound like a broken record, you're right about the left's inabilty to articulate any real difference with the president's policies
TrueCentrist: The broken record is the liberal elitists who think they're smarter than bush (and the rest of the country judging from the red/blue map!!!). Classic limo-liberals who can't stand the fact their "policies" are rejected each time put to a vote! The desperation on the pages of the Globe/NYT/Wash Post is laughable!!
The media can no longer be considered "liberal." There are a couple of holdouts (Wash Post, Boston Globe, NYT), but for the most part the country is indeed conservative. Whether it's a "Southern Democrat", a "pragmatic" mid-westerner, from New York to California--indeed from sea to shining sea. NYC has a GOP mayor, California a GOP guv--and the death penalty. And Massachusetts will again send a candidate for the White House...only this time he may actually stand a chance because he'll have the will of the majority behind him. Although his religion may scare off some people (as in Lieberman)...
you're all a bunch of right-wing nut jobs
right wing nut jobs??
How about all you liberal elitists who think you're smarter than the rest of the country. this isn't about "red" vs "blue" rather it's about right vs wrong...competition vs entitlement.
then there's the war. You dig your heads in the sand (literally if Osama would have his way) pretending there's no threat, cowardly blaming yourselves, and expounding a "let's not offend anyone" strategy while the enemy--yes there's an enemy--plots against you (and me, and my kids, indeed my culture). Do you remember how you felt that day? Do you really think its better to fight them here with civilians? The point of the arrow is to kill our enemies.
start using all that gray matter for the greater good instead of high minded protectionism.
Post a Comment
<< Home